Replies

"I always love this; creationists can't grap that evolution makes no claims as to the origins of life."

No claims? Well, if Richard Dawkins is a spokesman for evolution, he certainly makes some claims. I read his book, The Blind Watchmaker" several years ago, and I was absolutely amazed by his so-called "reasoning." In one chapter, for example, he speculates wildly about how chemical (inorganic) "natural selection" could have led to the first living cell. Speculation is fine, of course. But then at the end of this chapter of speculation he boldly asserts that, although we don't know exactly how it happened, we know for fact that it happened by purely natural mechanisms with no intelligent design. Baloney.

Another obvious point needs to be made here. If evolutionists "make no claims as to the origins of life," than how can they be so sure that evolution after that point involved no ID? If you recognize that ID may have been required to get the first living cell, how can you categorically reject ID after that point?

"No claims?"

Yep. Evolution is not, and has never been about, the origins of life.

"Another obvious point needs to be made here. If evolutionists "make no claims as to the origins of life," than how can they be so sure that evolution after that point involved no ID?"

They can't. We can't say anything about ID because, like the existence of a deity, it lies outside of the realm of science. Anything and everything can be construed as being made by an intelligent designer.

"If you recognize that ID may have been required to get the first living cell, how can you categorically reject ID after that point?"

Again, science cannot say anything for or against ID; it isn't a scientific question.